The dissertation deals with the complex research of the means of obtaining knowledge from a person in criminal pre-trial procedure. General provisions on the means of obtaining knowledge from a person in criminal pre-trial proceedings are disclosed. It is proved that in criminal proceeding it is possible to receive from a person: personal data of the participants; knowledge about the course of criminal proceedings or the course of the certain procedural action; information about the committed criminal offense.
Knowledge, received from a person, should include information of a verbal (linguistic) nature (testimony, explanation) and non-verbal (material) nature (information about the body, appearance of the person and physical evidence). Knowledge obtained from a person ca be contained not only in testimony, but in all procedural sources specified by legislation. Identification of knowledge as one of the secrets, prescribed by law, may give a person some immunity against receiving such information from him/her.
It is stated that the universal rule of the procedural regime for obtaining knowledge from a person is observing the human right to freedom from self-disclosure, the right not to testify against close relatives and family members, other human rights, no matter what kind of mean of obtaining is used, and regardless of which nature has knowledge obtained from a person.
It is determined that the means of obtaining knowledge from a person in criminal pre-trial procedure are the ways of activity of the subjects of criminal proceedings, which do not contradict criminal procedural legislation and are aimed to obtain procedurally significant information from a person (his/her consciousness or physical body) for the purpose of its use in criminal procedural activities.
The functional purpose of the means of obtaining knowledge from a person in criminal pre-trial proceedings is disclosed. It is stated that mentioned means have such functions as meaningful provision of preparing of pre-trial prosecution and recording of evidentiary information.
By using means of obtaining knowledge from a person in pre-trial criminal procedure, the subjects of the proceedings accumulate information that creates conviction and proof to make certain criminal procedural decisions, in particular for the purpose of making an indictment and referring the proceeding to the court.
It is concluded that the use of technical means for fixing the process of use of the means of obtaining knowledge from a person in pre-trial criminal proceedings has an additional guarantee value, along with the preparation of written documents by the investigator, the prosecutor such as: protocol, explanation.
The system was clarified and the means of obtaining knowledge from a person in criminal pre-trial proceedings were classified. It is substantiated that the system of means of obtaining information from a person in pre-trial criminal proceedings is an open system, which includes means in the form of investigative (detective) actions, covert investigative (detective) actions, procedural actions, measures to ensure criminal proceedings and other actions, measures, etc., which do not contradict criminal procedural law.
The comprehensive range of such means can be divided into: 1) means of obtaining knowledge from a person, during which law does not allow to apply coercion; 2) means of obtaining knowledge from a person, during which law allows to use coercion.
It is emphasized in the thesis that the authority of the parties of prosecution to interrogate all witnesses (both prosecution and defense) at the stage of pre-trial investigation, while warning the latter of criminal liability is contrary to the general principle of the competitiveness of the parties of criminal proceedings.
The conducted research gave the possibility to conclude that interrogation at the pre-trial stage is an ineffective mean of obtaining knowledge from a person. The investigator, the prosecutor in the pre-trial proceedings, perform a considerable amount of procedural activity regarding the interrogation of people, but the results of the mentioned investigative (detective) action are not of probative value in the decision of the case in court. This necessitates the re-interrogation of people in court both during the pre-trial investigation and during the court proceedings. It was emphasized that the content of the legal regulation of the interrogation by the investigator and the prosecutor at the stage of pre-trial investigation should be changed by excluding the provision on warning of people of criminal liability and simplification of the procedure of conducting and recording the interrogation.
